They charge flights (and extras) in the currency of the departure country.

Which screws British people over because they have always matched the fixed fees up as if €1 = £1. For example, the name change fee is €160 / £160. At least they use a real exchange rate when setting the base flight fares themselves - except when it's a special offer of £5 / €5 for a flight.

Somebody told me that the American people don't actually vote the president in, and that instead they're voting in "electors" in their state to vote for the president. And it's expected that the electors vote the way their state voted, but they aren't required to. Is this true? And yet America goes around the world trying to force "democracy" on people?! Pot, meet kettle!!!!

Is America going around the world trying to force "democracy" on people? Hillary had an opportunity to install a "democracy" in Libya, and she consciously chose not to. Libya could have started recovering and gaining some quality of life, but instead, everyone is in danger there. Apparently.

[EDIT] Not exactly that, but this is related. But I'm too tired to read it properly

Somebody told me that the American people don't actually vote the president in, and that instead they're voting in "electors" in their state to vote for the president. And it's expected that the electors vote the way their state voted, but they aren't required to. Is this true?

It sounds like it's all a sham anyway because the electors are chosen to match the popular vote, and apparently most states have laws in place requiring the electors to vote for the party that they represent (and the parties generally choose the electors knowing they will do so anyway). I don't imagine the parties would ever ask their electors to vote against the party, but I wonder if they could still use this power to elect the wrong candidate? I guess not unless another republican's name is on the ballot. Still, would the sabotage themselves if they decided they didn't like their candidate? I suppose.

What's the point of having the electors at all? Either they can vote for whoever they wish and they undermine democracy, or they are required to vote for the same people the population did and it's a complete waste of time and resources.

Is it just me or are the "united" states about as far away from united as can be without civil war?

Append:

Besides, if historical reasons mattered, wouldn't you try to honor the original intent behind the system and enforce people voting for "electors" within their district instead of bastardizing the entire election process into this sham? If you throw away the district elections (which, for the record, is nearly how the Canadian systems works, albeit it has its flaws too) then you need to rethink the entire system because it doesn't make sense out of context.